Haplogroups N and IMtdna are possibly attributable to Arab ancestry, about 15% non-Arab in upper Egypt. But still, most of that would easily be attributable to the Neolithic input from “AsiA” very little of this would be attributable to Arabs.

To sum up, there doesn’t seem to be majority ‘Arab’ genetic component to the Egyptian DNApool,20% absolute maximum. A lot of the nonAfricanDNA is traceable to the Neolithic farmingexpansion that swept acrossNorth Africa, so it would be a lot lower in reality.

In upper Egypt a maximum of 20% of the Y chromosomes are Non –African.

{My Mother’s mtDNA L2a1 has been shown to be prevalent in North Africa}..

{Since the Dynastic times, of Ethiopian-Nubian and Egyptian Kingdoms}…..

So how these people are supposed to have “MagicallyChanged” appearance in the past few thousand

years with so little foreign input I’d like to know…

Egyptians are Indigenous “African-Egyptian”, Not Euro/Arabs.. They are in essence “African-Arabs”.

The Sahara advanced hundreds of kilometers further south, and the Equatorial Rainforests

Were reduced to a small fraction of their present size, leaving open woodland and savanna in much of the Congo basin.

This may have formed a refuge area from which modern humans later dispersed:

Some with haplogroup L2aEast and West, with L1b west;

Perhaps even some with L1a East and L1d Southward.

The origins of these expansions may lie earlier,

At the beginnings of the Later Stone Age, ~40,000 years ago.

The Valley of the Queens, is a place in Egypt where wives of Pharaohs were buried in ancient times. In ancient times, it was known as Ta-Set-Neferu, meaning –‘the place of the Children of the Pharaoh’, because along with the Queens of the 18th, 19th and 20th dynasties (1550–1070 BCE) many princes and princesses were also buried with various members of the nobility. The tombs of these individuals were maintained by mortuary priests who performed daily rituals and provided offerings and prayers for the deceased nobility.

The distributions and ages of L1a, L1c/L3e, and L1d testify to the habitation of East, and Central, and southern Africa, respectively, by modern humans, ~40,000 years ago.

Similarly, L1b, L3b, and L3d imply that West Africa has been inhabited since at least 20,000–30,000 years ago.

Haplogroup L1b is concentrated in West Africa, with some overflow into Central and North Africa

A large proportion (65%) of the African-European mtDNAs investigated could be attributed to modern and well-documented demographic routes that existed during the Romanization period, the Arab conquest, and the trans-Atlantic slave trade. However, there is strong evidence pointing to the fact that the remaining 35% of the African L-European mtDNAs stand as modern witnesses of sporadic population movements occurring between the two continents that might have begun as early as 11,000 yr ago (Fig. 5).

These contacts were not only restricted to North Africa, but connected Sub- Saharan regions to Europe directly via coastal routes or first crossing North African territories toward the Mediterranean Sea. 10,000 Years before Slavery, Arab Conquest or Roman period Outside of Africa.

Attention should also be brought to the L2a1 clads above who also have an Indigenous North American Origin i.e.. (Indigenous Native American) (USA Origins), although they carry an African Haplogroup. Some of these Haplogroups are only found in Europe or the Americas, and Not in Africa. These groups may also produce a Mulatto, Native American, or European Pheno-type (features such as Straight or Curly hair types and multitude of different complexions). Some of these particular Haplotypes has African and American Origins, but the Haplogroup is 100% African. (i.e.. North African, East African, South African, West African). This group may also share genetic ancestry with other Indigenous Americans, as well as the Asiatic-African Moors of America.

A single L2d1 sequence from the Yemeni sample shares the haplotype that has so far been observed in Sudan and in southeastern Africa

Ethiopian L2b sequences form a subset of a predominantly West African clade, distinguished from West African lineages by a transition @ np“16145″.

We recognize, however, that the origins of these haplogroups may be more ancient than we can trace

(L2, for example, may be well >70,000 years old )….. and that, in such cases,

evidence of the earlier distribution of these clusters may have been erased by subsequent demographic processe.

We have attempted partly to disentangle the structure of L2a, retaining as irreducible on present evidence three major squares close to the root of the cluster. These reticulations link eight main clusters by single-step mutations.

We assume that the main reticulations of the network are due to the existence of rapid transitions at positions 16189 and 16192

(Howell et al. 2000), which approach saturation due to the high time depth of African lineages.

We also assume that position 16309 is more stable than the two known fast sites and therefore is not responsible for the main reticulations.

On these grounds, clusters α1-α2-α3, as well as β1-β2-β3, might be collapsed into two main clusters,

One of them with the basal motif of “(L2a)” and theother harboring the transition at “16309″ (L2a1).

Several instances in which 16309 must nevertheless evolve in parallel can then be read off the network …..

Full report link below on genetic mtdna migrations:

Haplogroup L2a can be further divided into L2a1, harboring the transition at 16309 (Salas et al. 2002).

A recent study on mtDNA suggested that modern Nubians and Egyptians are much more similar to one another than either is to southern Sudanese populations and that the divergence between the two northern populations may have occurred during the past few hundred or few thousand years (Krings et al. 1999).

The Bill Nobody Noticed: National DNA Databank

InApril of 2008, President Bush signed into lawS.1858 which allows the federal government to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. This was to be implemented within 6 months meaning that this collection is now being carried out. Congressman Ron Paul states that this bill is the first step towards the establishment of a National DNA Database.

S.1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is justified as a “national contingency plan” in that it represents preparation for any sort of public health emergency. The bill states that the federal government should “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly”. Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests. Read the full bill:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp…

Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care warns that this new law represents the beginning of nationwide genetic testing. Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:

• Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.

• Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.

• Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.

• Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study “secondary conditions” of individuals and their families.

• Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

Brase states that under this bill, ”The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially Owned by the Government”, and “Every Citizen born becomes a potential subject of Government-Sponsored Genetic Research.” All 50 states are now routinely providing results of genetic screenings to the Department of Homeland Security and this bill will establish the legality of that practice plus include DNA.

Ron Paul has also vigorously argued against this bill making the following comments before the US House of Representatives:

“I cannot support legislation…that exceeds the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. I must oppose it.”

“S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker, the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …”

“Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent …

My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children, in fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a ‘public health’ disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy.

As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of ‘emergency.”

The Kushites left their mark on various aspects of the Ancient World and their legacy is still readily discernible from the various archaeological field sites scattered through out modern Sudan.

The first cultures arose in Sudan before the time of a unified Egypt. The earliest signs of which show a continuity in developing Nile valley cultures comes from the Khartoum Neolithic, where we see the beginnings of food production in the region. As these centers evolved, local societies began to amalgamate into confederations, depending on different strategies distinct from earlier semi-nomadic lifestyles.

One such polity, called the “A-group” emerged in lower Sudan around 3800 BC, and were contemporaneous with the pre-dynasticNaqada people of Upper Egypt, sharing an almost identical culture. After the demise of the A-group, archaeological evidence attesting to permanent settlements is scant.

The culture called the “C-group”, who founded the Kingdom of Kush began to appear consistently in Egyptian accounts and the archaeological record. It is through Egyptian, Hebrew, and Greco-Roman records that most of our knowledge of Kush comes.

The Egyptians took control of Kush in ca. 1520 BC, but their grip on the area would decline over the next 500 years, until the Kushites became independent.

The Kushites buried their monarchs along with all their courtiers in mass graves. Archaeologists refer to these practices as the “Pan-grave culture”.

The Kushites also built burial mounds and pyramids, and shared some of the same gods worshiped in Egypt, especially Ammon and Isis. Curiously, during Egypt’s expansion into Kushite territory during the New Kingdom, upon discovering the site at Gebel-Barkal

The Egyptians believed they’d found the remnants of an Ancient Egyptian kingship and culture as well as the origin of Ammon and the Hedjet (or “white crown“)

In Ancient Egypt, Libyanprinces had taken control of the delta under Shoshenq Iin 945 BC, founding the so-called Libyan or Bubastite dynasty that would rule for some 200 years.

Sheshonq also gained control of southern Egypt by placing his family members in important priestly positions. However, Libyan control began to erode as a rival dynasty in the delta arose inLeontopolis, and Kushitesthreatened from the south.

Around 727BC the Kushite king Piye invaded northward, seizing control of Thebes and eventuallythe Delta. His dynasty,

Pharaoh Taharka spent half his time as ruler of Egypt restoring its earlier cultural achievements while also fending off Assyrian power in the east. In 674, he defeated an invading Assyrian army under the leadership of Esarhaddon.

Three years later, he would be defeated in three battles that would force Kush out of Egypt altogether.

Why the Kushites chose to enter Egypt at this crucial point of foreign domination is subject to debate. Archaeologist Timmothy Kendall offers his own hypotheses, connecting it to a claim of legitimacy associated with Gebel Barkal.

“Amun of Napata granted me to be ruler of every foreign country,” and “Amun in Thebes granted me to be ruler of the Black Land (Kemit)”.

Noteworthy is that according to Kendall,

“foreign lands” in this regard seems to include Lower Egypt while Kemit seems to refer to a UnitedUpper Egypt and Nubia…

The name given this civilization comes from the Old Testament where Cush (Hebrew: כוש) was one of the sons of Ham (Genesis 10:6) who settled in NorthEast Africa.

In the Bible and at different times in the Ancient World, a large region covering Sudan, modern day Southern Egypt, and parts of Ethiopia,Eritrea, and Somaliland was known as “Cush”. Cush/Kush also referred to areas in “Asia”.

The Hebrew Bible refers to “Cush” on a number of occasions, though various English translations translate this as “Nubian”, “Ethiopia”, “Sudan”, and “Cushite” (Unseth 1999).

This is due to the fact that the Greeks referred to all dark skinned people as Cushites.

Moses‘ wife, Tzipporah, is described as a Kushite in the book of Numbers 12:1. Some contend that this Cush was in southernArabia. See Biblical Cush for a full discussion. All of this is complicated by the fact that the Septuagint translated “Cush” as “Aethiopia“, leading to the misleading conclusion that “Cush/Kush” should be equated with the borders of present day “Ethiopia”.